Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jared James Sprowls Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, “focusing on whether the refusal resulted in error.”
State of Minnesota v. Joe Cecil Sistrunk Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that intoxication is only a defense to specific-intent crimes); -58 (Minn. App. 2009) (determining that the jury did not need to receive an intoxication instruction because terroristic threats made with reckless disregard is not a specific-intent
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 (2) there must be evidence sufficient to support a jury finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was intoxicated; and (3) the defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Quantelize Jerell Welch Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A prosecutor engages in misconduct when she mischaracterizes the evidence, or improperly refers to inadmissible evidence, d 9, 19 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
is so overwhelming as to constitute the effective offer of intoxication as an explanation for the defendant’s actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott William Mooney Minn. Ct. App. 2023
To receive the requested instruction, “(1) the defendant must be charged with a specific-intent crime; (2) there must be evidence sufficient to support a jury finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was intoxicated; and (3) the defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied when evidence, if proved at trial, would preclude judgment of acquittal); (explaining that consuming intoxicants does not prove intoxication and intoxication does not prove lack of intent).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Derek Donner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Torres , , 616 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Paul Kahn Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Deirdre Elise Evavold Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christian David-Robert Wille Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 609.075 (2016); (stating, among other requirements, that a defendant must “be charged with a specific -intent crime” to receive a voluntary -intoxication jury instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To receive the requested instruction, “(1) the defendant must be charged with a specific-intent crime; (2) there must be ev idence sufficient to support a jury finding, by a preponderance of the eviden ce, that the defendant was intoxicated; and (3) the defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Landis Sherel Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a voluntary -intoxication jury instruction when appellant could “describe[] the actions of all participants lucidly and precisely, without any reference to his own 8 intoxication”).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Frederick Gratz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
three requirements in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication: “(1) the defendant must be charged with a specific - intent crime; (2) there must be evidence sufficient to support a jury finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was intoxicated; and (3) the defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.” State v. Torres , d 609, 616 (Minn. 2001) ; -57 (Minn. 2013).
Robert Patrick Butters v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Patrick Butters v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To receive a requested instruction on voluntary intoxication, the defendant must, among other things, “offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.” & n.5 (Minn. 1998) (“Before the intoxication defense comes into play, a defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”).
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that descriptions of murder as “cold blooded killing” in which victim was “slaughtered” and “butchered alive” were not improper because prosecutor “hew[ed] to the definitions of” the words used).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
a preponderance of the evidence [showing] that the defendant was intoxicated; and (3) the defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 DECISION “We review a [district] court’s refusal to issue a requested instruction for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the refusal resulted in error.”
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] review a trial court’s refusal to issue a requested instruction for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the refusal resulted in error.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “review a trial court’s refusal to issue a requested instruction for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the refusal resulted in error.”
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
We affirmed Torres’s conviction on direct appeal, and we subsequently affirmed the summary denial of his first petition for postconviction relief
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 814 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wilson 814 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
See, (explaining that to receive a voluntary intoxication defense, a defendant must be charged with a specific-intent crime); City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 466 , -55 (1976) (explaining that, “[t]he general rule in Minnesota is that voluntary intoxication is a defense to
State v. Cogger 802 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cogger 802 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Fleck 797 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Fleck 797 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In order to receive a requested voluntary-intoxication jury instruction: “(1) the defendant must be charged with a specific-intent crime; (2) there must be evidence sufficient to support a jury finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was intoxicated; and *737 (3) the defendant must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions.”
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(including as requirement for defendant to receive jury instruction on intoxication defense that defendant “must offer intoxication as an explanation for his actions”).
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(determining that the district court must give a requested voluntary-intoxication jury instruction only when, among other things, the defendant is charged with a specific-intent crime); Fortman, 474 *d at 403-04 (stating that a voluntary-intoxication instruction will be given only if specific

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by